Comments on: Perhaps Demand Curves Slope Upward to the Right – or, Alternative-Universe Economics

By: jimpierq

jimpierq — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:09:04 +0000

I read Landsburg to be saying the same thing — I'm sure he doesn't believe it's the case that Krugman actually forgets his economics.

By: jimpierq

jimpierq — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:09:04 +0000

I read Landsburg to be saying the same thing — I'm sure he doesn't believe it's the case that Krugman actually forgets his economics.

By: edwardhake

edwardhake — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:14:54 +0000

Steve
After reading any recent column by Krugman I find myself screaming. It doesn't realize how the real world works. You have shown me why this is true. Also he joins that distinquished
Nobel winners list of Carter, Gore, etal.

By: indianajim

indianajim — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:05:35 +0000

When I was in grad school, my professor told me that whoever would find a solid exception to the law of demand would have a shot at the Nobel in economics. But my professor seems to have been completely wrong for it seems that IF one has a Nobel in economics, THEN he is free to claim exceptions to the law of demand willy-nilly as Krugman has. Krugman is in good company too with another Nobel winner, Gary Becker, who cavalierly (sans evidence) claimed that restaurant demand was alternatively downward sloping, then upward, then downward again (resembling a roller coaster). But at least Becker knows that “discretion is the better part of valor”; he has declined the offer extended by Dan Klein to respond to the critique of his roller-coaster-shaped-demand curve that Klein published in his EJW. Still, it should shame a Nobel winner to be on Klein's “sounds of silence” listing (of challenged authors who haven't the stomach for debate, or the humility to admit error).

By: indianajim

indianajim — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:05:35 +0000

By: eidolways

eidolways — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:17:06 +0000

Don's title is on the money. I'm surprised Krugman forgot this fact.

Everyone would love to slack off and get paid for it. But slacking off at work gets you fired.

BUT!

If you make it harder to fire people, the "cost" of slacking off at work - chances of getting fired - goes down. As per the demand curve, people will demand more of this particular activity. They'll slack off on the job more. Their productive output will VERY likely fall.

Then again, I suppose this isn't THAT far off for Krugman and his fellow Keynesians. They've been confusing employment for productivity for generations.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:15:47 +0000

This is more like it.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:15:22 +0000

“Allow me to introduce you to the concept of a tradeoff – you tradeoff costs in boom periods when the costs are easier to bear with benefits in busts. “

Wonk wonk wonk. Daniel thinks he's better than the invisible hand.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:14:34 +0000

“Apologies for the length”

Dorkiel should be apologizing for content. Oh well.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:13:18 +0000

“Krugman was clearly advocating an unemployment-smoothing strategy”

If there's anything Dorkiel likes, it's policy wonking!

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:11:44 +0000

Yes, the Devil. And you're playing the advocate!

But what else should we expect.

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:34:40 +0000

Plenty of free-marketers predicted this crash. Particularly among the more extreme free-marketers.

By: DrT1

DrT1 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:59:55 +0000

Steve Landsburg is too kind. Paul Klugman doesn't forget economics in order to write his columns. Instead, he deliberately ignores economics to write columns that please left-wingers and the Obama administration. This makes him unethical rather than forgetful.

By: OnlyShawn

OnlyShawn — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:43:36 +0000

exhibit a: france.

By: Economiser

Economiser — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:40:00 +0000

This reminds me of the old joke:

An economist visits China and a Chinese government official proudly shows him various sites around the country. At a construction site, the economist observes numerous laborers digging a large ditch using shovels. The economist asks his government tour guide why they are digging ditches manually instead of using a backhoe or other modern construction equipment. The government official states happily that using shovels provides employment for more people. The economist replies, "Why don't you give them spoons?"

By: muirgeo

muirgeo — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:17:15 +0000

Yeah and he is on record predicting this crash… where as most free marketeers cheered us right off the cliff.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:58:40 +0000

I believe they are ghost written by a graduate student of political science.

By: SteveO

SteveO — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:37:49 +0000

I would like to add that there are already “labor rules that discourage firing”. But they are natural (laws), not legislation. If an employer fires 100% of his employees, he will no longer have a productive business. If he hires 100% of the people on the planet, he will no longer have an efficient business.

Employers already have natural laws that govern some optimal amount of hiring- precisely as many as needed to produce the maximum profit, and no more than the goodwill created by the amount of profit he is willing to forego.

As situations change, employers make marginal decisions that may mean letting a marginal number of workers go. A business that did the opposite, hires more people to "help out" in a bad economy, would go bankrupt, and be no help to it's customers or employees once economic conditions were better again.

By: SteveO

SteveO — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:33:31 +0000

Let me point this out: “Spread out the pain”.

By: MWG

MWG — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:06:23 +0000

You should spend some time in S. America (Particularly Brazil) to see just how well “worker protection” laws have worked.